Agenda item

This application was called in by Councillors Butt and Van Kalwala, ward members to be decided by Committee because the applicant had expressed a view that the reasons for refusal did not take into consideration the facts that were applicable to the application case and would therefore like the opportunity to address the committee and put forward his case.

The Planning Manager, Neil McClellan with reference to the tabled supplementary information informed the Committee that although the applicant had offered to reduce the height of the outbuilding and remove all internal partitioning toilet/ bathroom but he had not confirmed to what degree he would be prepared to reduce the area of the outbuilding.  He continued that whilst the possible reduction in height and removal of partitioning was noted, the retention of a building of this floor area (56 square metres) was considered excessive and could not be considered ancillary to the existing house.  He drew the Committee’s attention to an amended reason 1 by deleting reference to 64 Station Grove and replacing with “impact on neighbouring occupiers”.

Mr John O’Dea an objector reiterated his objection that the outbuilding was constructed for an illegal use that was not ancillary to the use of the main dwelling.

In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Code of Practice, Councillor Butt, a ward member stated that he had been approached by the applicant in connection with this application.  Councillor Butt informed the Committee that the alleged illegal use of the outbuilding which had a valid certificate of lawfulness commenced when the applicant was out of the country.  Mindful of the need to regularise the use, the applicant had offered to comply with requirements and standards by a reduction in height and alterations to internal partitions.  Councillor Butt requested that the applicant be given an opportunity to carry out the alterations and amendments as sought by officers.

During discussions, Councillor Hashmi stated that the building was constructed by the applicant’s late father and that the illegal use was carried out without the applicant’s knowledge.  He therefore submitted that as the applicant was prepared to ensure compliance, officers be authorised to negotiate for the reduction.  In a similar vein, Councillor Anwar stated that note ought to be taken of the applicant’s willingness to compromise with officers’ requirements, alleging that in similar cases in the Neasden and Kingsbury areas, applicants had been given an opportunity to comply with requirements.  He added that in his view the building had no detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties.  Councillor Cummins added that as the objections appeared to be based on uses which did not involve the applicant, the Committee should consider granting planning permission and to authorise officers to monitor the use of the structure.  The Chair added that the certificate of lawfulness of use for the outbuilding which was in existence in 2008 might have ceased as a result of the alleged illegal use however, the building should be allowed to remain.  Councillor Thomas urged members to defer the application pending submission.

In responding to the above, the Planning Manager stated that when the certificate was granted it matched that which was built but as its use had changed, full planning permission was required.  He added that according to Government regulations, the certificate was impact based and hence the requirement for a reduction from 3m to 2.5m.  The Head of Area Planning Steve Weeks added that the excessive structure of 56 square metres within a suburban rear garden was the reason for serving an enforcement notice as the structure failed to comply with the certificate of lawfulness of use.  He advised the applicant to consider reducing the footprint rather than just the height and internal layout.  In response to Councillor Thomas’ amendment for deferral, he submitted that the application ought to be determined as recommended, in view of the impending enforcement notice and that officers be authorised to negotiate with the applicant before the enforcement notice became effective.

The application was refused on the Chair’s casting vote.